Ars Weight Loss Challenge

If my BMR is 1388 calories/day (5'2, 136lbs) 1050 shouldn't be too low. I'm actually under 1200 calories about half the time, and around 1050 or below about 40% of the time (I just counted, 14 out of the 35 days I've been logging I've come <1050) and it's fine. This is a 388 calorie/day deficit, which isn't even enough to lose a pound a week, unless I exercise.

Speaking of which, most of my exercise is running, so there isn't much to bulk up from that.

The only calc you should be doing is the Katch-McArdle method. If that BMR calculator has anything other than your weight, bodyfat %, and activity level (and you should always choose Sedentary/1.2 IMO), it's garbage.

Height, for example, is useless.

Also, draccy, you will never bulk without serious lifting and eating. Women have something like 10% of the testosterone of men. You simply can't bulk without serious effort. So don't worry about that, running won't do shit to you but burn calories.

Do you actually have a link to a good online calculator? Because I'm getting some wildly varying numbers. Seriously, some say 1276, which would indicate it would be impossible for me to lose a pound a week without starving myself. Some say 1300s. One even said 1655.

As for "bulking up," I'm not worried about that. Even if I were actually lifting weights. I was replying to katespace, that I'm not really doing anything that would result in fat loss in conjunction with increased muscle mass, resulting in the same weight but different measurements.

Guys, I am not sure what her current weight is, but she weighs less than me but is tiny like me. I am averaging between 1050 and 1150 calories from food each day, and I ignore the 275ish that I normally exercise off each day. She isn't going to starve to death unless she drops under 800 calories a day regularly.

One of the hardest things about my lifestyle change both times is internalizing how very little food I need compared to everybody else - growing kids, men, normal sized women, everyone except like, babies. A healthy weight range for 5'0" is between 98 and 128 lbs, depending on body type. At less than 120 (taking an upper middle normal) you just don't need to eat much. The US has no respect for normal portion sizes, and Americans usually freak out when they encounter one, and Draccy and I only need about 3/4 of one of those.

Follow other indications of health, possibly find a good multivitamin, and eat no deliberate carbs. You will find a system and a diet that works for you, it takes a lot of time and trial and error to get good at this.

I am being really a lot more successful this round even though my starting point was 30 lbs less, it's because I have literally years of experience of what to eat and what not to eat, along with when to eat and exactly how much of everything. Be patient with yourself, you can figure this out. It may be crappy and inexact science, but it's still science. And science works, bitches.

5'2, 136lbs, with body fat of 32 or 33%, I forget exactly which. The body fat was done using an electrode thingy last fall at the health fair we had at work. Most of the fat is around my stomach, hips, and thighs, though the rest of me has extra padding as well, as I can't zip up an awesome pair of knee high boots I used to be able to wear comfortably 20lbs ago.

800-1000 calories a day for a small female is not "low" and is in no way going to send her into "starvation." And while she may undergo some level of hypertrophy, she's unlikely to be gaining any significant mass from running, especially on a 1000 calorie diet. Running is (largely) catabolic.

It is exceedingly unlikely that anyone on a calorie restricted diet is "putting on muscle" at a rate to offset fat loss and maintain equilibrium. If so, you're not in an energy deficit... You might manage it for a week or two if you start resistance training as your existing muscle tissue starts pulling in glycogen and water, but actual new muscle tissue is probably not happening in any great amount. You'll also gain strength over the early days, but it will be neural adaptation and not muscle gain. Real body composition changes at a fairly equal rate is at some level going to require calorie cycling (see Martin Berkhan), IMO, and will also be pretty slow (.25-.5 lbs a week is a lot more realistic than 1 lb).

I used to try and use the online calculators, but I gave up on them. I'm not sure what the problem is, probably that they vastly overestimate calories needed for obese people. Some were telling me I could eat 3500-4500 calories a day and lose weight. I found it best to just count calories and keep reducing until you're losing at a rate you're comfortable with. I've also seen and been amazed at how little I can actually eat and get by.

2 years ago at over 300 lbs I was eating 1200 calories a day with one cheat meal a week. I did zero cardio, but still lifted weights. I'll admit this was a little too extreme, and my lifting did suffer, but I lost a ton of fat very quickly. 50 lbs in 5 monthsWhen I started that plan I was actually laughing at how well satisfied I was with what I was eating. Most days I didn't feel like I was missing anything. The other days I was missing beer.

I used to try and use the online calculators, but I gave up on them. I'm not sure what the problem is, probably that they vastly overestimate calories needed for obese people.

Because you weren't using the right one. I tried a bunch of other useless "online calculators" too, but until I found the Katch-McArdle algorithm - which actually works for everyone I've ever talked to or chatted with online - I was totally lost like you were

What is the best way to find out what my body fat% is though? And by best I don't mean most accurate, cause I know the answer to that and I am not paying for it. By best I mean "easiest and good enough for government work." I have heard that the scale ones are useless, what method is worth it? Do I even care if I am successfully losing weight and feel fine doing it?

I used to try and use the online calculators, but I gave up on them. I'm not sure what the problem is, probably that they vastly overestimate calories needed for obese people.

Because you weren't using the right one. I tried a bunch of other useless "online calculators" too, but until I found the Katch-McArdle algorithm - which actually works for everyone I've ever talked to or chatted with online - I was totally lost like you were

Why do you need an algorithm?

Pick any random number (you could just log what you eat in a typical day), subtract 500 calories/day, then monitor your weight. Reduce the amount until you are losing a lb or two a week.

What is the best way to find out what my body fat% is though? And by best I don't mean most accurate, cause I know the answer to that and I am not paying for it. By best I mean "easiest and good enough for government work." I have heard that the scale ones are useless, what method is worth it? Do I even care if I am successfully losing weight and feel fine doing it?

If you want to go REAL "easy mode", search Google Images for "body fat images" and you will see numerous pictures showing various human bodies and their associated body fat percentages. Just remember to be honest, don't pick someone bigger because you dislike your body, conversely don't pick someone smaller just because you're in denial.

AmigaPhreak wrote:

Why do you need an algorithm?

Pick any random number (you could just log what you eat in a typical day), subtract 500 calories/day, then monitor your weight. Reduce the amount until you are losing a lb or two a week.

Because sticking to sound numbers is more efficient than random bullshit guesswork. Because logging what you eat in a day is meaningless if you're gaining weight. This is besides the fact that it takes 30 seconds to do this.

Quote:

Losing weight isn't rocket science.

It's not as easy as breathing for most, either, which should be obvious given the hundreds of pages we have on the subject here on Ars alone.

What is the best way to find out what my body fat% is though? And by best I don't mean most accurate, cause I know the answer to that and I am not paying for it. By best I mean "easiest and good enough for government work." I have heard that the scale ones are useless, what method is worth it? Do I even care if I am successfully losing weight and feel fine doing it?

I'm not sure. When I had it done at my old gym a couple of years back via calipers I was around 30%. When I had it done last fall at the health fair they put an electrode on my hand and another on my foot, and got 32-33%. I would guess that the electrode measure is more accurate, because technology, but I don't know where you could go to have this done.

Because sticking to sound numbers is more efficient than random bullshit guesswork. Because logging what you eat in a day is meaningless if you're gaining weight. This is besides the fact that it takes 30 seconds to do this.

My point was that if you want to know what your BMR is, let your body tell you. Start from 1500 calories per day, for example. If you lose weight too fast, eat more. If you aren't losing fast enough, eat less.

I don't consider the above advice "random bullshit guesswork". It acknowledges that BMR can vary quite a bit and in ways that cannot be accurately predicted, even if you control for lean body mass/age/sex/<whatever> instead of just weight.

Quote:

Quote:

Losing weight isn't rocket science.

It's not as easy as breathing for most, either, which should be obvious given the hundreds of pages we have on the subject here on Ars alone.

The thread seems to be more about the best ways to accomplish weight loss. I think everyone here knows intuitively that you lose weight by eating fewer calories than you burn. That's the point I was trying to make...done rather poorly, it seems.

What is the best way to find out what my body fat% is though? And by best I don't mean most accurate, cause I know the answer to that and I am not paying for it. By best I mean "easiest and good enough for government work." I have heard that the scale ones are useless, what method is worth it? Do I even care if I am successfully losing weight and feel fine doing it?

Define "useless". Scales use the electrode method, which while less accurate than dunking yourself underwater, is cheap and easy.

That is incredibly interesting. I can easily put myself at about 33% body fat based on the pictures, and using that formula I end up at 1089 calories per day for 2 lbs of weight loss per week, which pretty much exactly the results I am getting. MFP put me at 1220 to start (over 15 lbs ago) but then it only dropped me to 1200 when it recalculated after 10 lbs. I suspected the hard limit for me shouldn't be 1200, so I've generally been shooting for 1100 instead. Despite constant warnings from MFP that my doom via starvation is imminent, I feel fine and have been successfully getting smaller.

What is the best way to find out what my body fat% is though? And by best I don't mean most accurate, cause I know the answer to that and I am not paying for it. By best I mean "easiest and good enough for government work." I have heard that the scale ones are useless, what method is worth it? Do I even care if I am successfully losing weight and feel fine doing it?

Define "useless". Scales use the electrode method, which while less accurate than dunking yourself underwater, is cheap and easy.

You're at a 7,000 calorie deficit per week? That's unusual for most tiny people, so you will excuse me while I say, "wow!" Then again as long as you aren't hungry, having headaches, etc., then I say kudos to you!

What is the best way to find out what my body fat% is though? And by best I don't mean most accurate, cause I know the answer to that and I am not paying for it. By best I mean "easiest and good enough for government work." I have heard that the scale ones are useless, what method is worth it? Do I even care if I am successfully losing weight and feel fine doing it?

Define "useless". Scales use the electrode method, which while less accurate than dunking yourself underwater, is cheap and easy.

My scale does this. It's not very accurate, but it seems precise when used per direction (measure BF at night without clothes before eating). It reads low (IMO) saying I'm at 8% and I'm more at 10%, but it helps me track the trends.

AngelZero wrote:

optimism wrote:

2 lbs of weight loss per week

You're at a 7,000 calorie deficit per week? That's unusual for most tiny people, so you will excuse me while I say, "wow!" Then again as long as you aren't hungry, having headaches, etc., then I say kudos to you!

Has opti posted her exercise regime? It isn't the norm and I certainly wasn't dieting, but in early January my running calorie burn alone was an estimated 5000 calories a week. I was eating a whole lot to maintain weight. :\

Also, IMO, "starvation mode" tends to get way overblown. I don't know many people (as in anyone) who can actually stand full on starvation conditions to the point where they would see mass muscle wasting, etc. like what is seen with anorexics. For example in this study it was shown that, over 6 months, people who exercised didn't have that much of a slow down. After adjusting for slow down in BMR for just actual body mass loss, it was worst case less than 90 calories a day slow down after six months of dieting for the non-exercising group.

I don't get that much exercise, about a half hour of intense cardio a day, 4-6 days a week. When I do it on a machine that tracks such things with weight and heart rate and age and such, it says I burn about 275 calories. I don't know how accurate that is or isn't, it doesn't matter cause I don't eat back those calories anyway.

I also don't know how long it will continue to work for - I've been averaging between 1.5 and 2 lbs of loss per week since New Year's. All I know is I want to get under 125 and stay there forever.

I don't get that much exercise, about a half hour of intense cardio a day, 4-6 days a week. When I do it on a machine that tracks such things with weight and heart rate and age and such, it says I burn about 275 calories. I don't know how accurate that is or isn't, it doesn't matter cause I don't eat back those calories anyway.

I also don't know how long it will continue to work for - I've been averaging between 1.5 and 2 lbs of loss per week since New Year's. All I know is I want to get under 125 and stay there forever.

The problem with most of those machines is that they don't tell you how much you'd have burnt just sitting on your ass instead of doing that cardio. That's obviously not to say that you shouldn't be working out, because the only way you're burning 275 calories just sitting on your ass is if you weigh 2000 pounds, but those numbers are always overstated.

I hate those warnings. I roll my eyes at them every night when I complete my day's log. It must be there due to legal reasons or something, they don't want to get sued for causing harm or something stupid. I see no other reason for the constant "you're going to waste awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!" warnings.

IME, focusing strictly on calories is almost always the wrong approach. You should be focusing on cleaning up your diet and getting the right macro-nutrients rather than worrying about a supposed 200 calorie overage or deficit. Also, obsessive (or hell, even daily) cardio can do more harm than good in the long term, and can actively work against your weight loss.

Focus on getting good quality proteins, a fair amount of veggies, a bit of fruit every now and then, and let the rest work itself out.

What is the best way to find out what my body fat% is though? And by best I don't mean most accurate, cause I know the answer to that and I am not paying for it. By best I mean "easiest and good enough for government work." I have heard that the scale ones are useless, what method is worth it? Do I even care if I am successfully losing weight and feel fine doing it?

Define "useless". Scales use the electrode method, which while less accurate than dunking yourself underwater, is cheap and easy.

My scale does this. It's not very accurate, but it seems precise when used per direction (measure BF at night without clothes before eating). It reads low (IMO) saying I'm at 8% and I'm more at 10%, but it helps me track the trends.

AngelZero wrote:

optimism wrote:

2 lbs of weight loss per week

You're at a 7,000 calorie deficit per week? That's unusual for most tiny people, so you will excuse me while I say, "wow!" Then again as long as you aren't hungry, having headaches, etc., then I say kudos to you!

Has opti posted her exercise regime? It isn't the norm and I certainly wasn't dieting, but in early January my running calorie burn alone was an estimated 5000 calories a week. I was eating a whole lot to maintain weight. :\

Also, IMO, "starvation mode" tends to get way overblown. I don't know many people (as in anyone) who can actually stand full on starvation conditions to the point where they would see mass muscle wasting, etc. like what is seen with anorexics. For example in this study it was shown that, over 6 months, people who exercised didn't have that much of a slow down. After adjusting for slow down in BMR for just actual body mass loss, it was worst case less than 90 calories a day slow down after six months of dieting for the non-exercising group.

FWIW I've found this handheld Omron unit to be a lot more accurate than any of the scales that I've owned that have a similar feature.

My point was that if you want to know what your BMR is, let your body tell you.

More than 2/3rds of Americans are obese. You really think we know shit about listening to our bodies? Or eating properly? Come on, now

think of it like medication, particularly birth control if you're a girl and have been on hormones, it works slightly differently for everyone, so you experiment with different methods and see what works *for you*. sometimes it's going to be frustrating and feel like no progress is being made, but that's part of the experiment.

i found that the best thing about counting calories is that it helps me calibrate my "is that enough food?" sense. and it seems that my body does know when to stop, i just have to be paying attention and not just eating because i'm bored/lonely/there's food in front of me.

Maya is just getting into the doldrums of a wicked plateau still. And lets be honest here, she doesn't want to hear it from me having hit a level where I'm happy and want to maintain.

I'm hoping she can find someone else to go to WW meetings with, as I think that'd be good for her. We'll see.

Standing Desk Update - It's great. My feet don't hurt anymore, my back is feeling much better at the end of the work day, and my posture is improving dramatically! I'm able to keep my shoulders back without the thought/effort it used to take. Helps that over the last 18 months my man boobs have started the transition into pecs. Though do to my Gynecomastia, I'm sure they'll never go away. Oh well, just need more muscle under them to balance it all out I figure.

So does anyone know how the average on STF is calculated? It always feels like it should be lower than it is, especially when one is consistently losing weight.

I'm sure Godfather does.

Unless that code stealing hack didn't look at what he did.

Bastard.

Anyway, it's based on a simple moving average, it gives more weight to the more recent entries but it takes into account all entries to calculate the average. I can post the actual algorithm if you'd like

So does anyone know how the average on STF is calculated? It always feels like it should be lower than it is, especially when one is consistently losing weight.

I'm sure Godfather does.

Unless that code stealing hack didn't look at what he did.

Bastard.

Anyway, it's based on a simple moving average, it gives more weight to the more recent entries but it takes into account all entries to calculate the average. I can post the actual algorithm if you'd like

Figured it out on my own! .1*(Today) + .9*(Yesterday's Avg)

It's not giving weight to more recent entries, though. If you swapped the .1 and .9 that'd be the case, but as it is it's giving far more weight to the average.

e: Math's off by .01%, probably a difference in where Excel's doing the rounding vs whatever you're using. Good enough for government though.

ee: Though, I guess it depends on what you're trying to do. Based on your site you pulled it from The Hacker's Diet, and his definition of the weight factor differs from Wikipedia's. Your formula tracks pretty close to the 20-day moving average, so if that's your intent then ignore me!

Sorry, I misspoke (also realize it's been almost a year since I've touched any code on the site and nearly two years since I've touched the weight averaging bit.) You are right, I am trying to keep a 20 day moving average and took the actual formula directly from The Hacker's Diet.

Still chugging along. Facing some pretty major life stuff, not going to use that as an excuse to stop my progress. I realized this morning that I have lost almost 20 lbs already this year. It also means that I have averaged 1.75 lbs of loss per week, which is pretty awesome for a really tiny woman. I am absolutely going to freak out once I get under 140. It will be the first time since sometime in college. Also in another 5-10 lbs even the smallest clothes I have will start to be too big on me. I don't mind.

I am also proud of myself because yesterday I was handed very big life-changing news, and I really only "broke" my diet a tiny bit. I realized that I wouldn't actually feel any better after eating A LOT of ice cream than I would after just eating a little, and in fact it would make me feel worse both physically and emotionally if I tried to cram a coldstone Love It into my tiny body. I ended up getting a kid's size (half-full Like It) that was half frozen yogurt half ice cream, with just some mini chips mixed in. I was surprised by how well it did the trick.

I am back on track this morning, and my cheat satisfied my urge. I don't have any desire to eat poorly again today. I want a healthy body. I've really been trying to dwell on the concept of self care lately, and what truly makes me feel the best. I still remember making fun of my 7th grade health teacher's "my body is a temple" speech...I feel like I should write him an apology letter now, even though I am certain he never knew. This body colors all of my life's experiences, places limits on or enables experiences that shape who I am and what I love and what I care about.

Wow, I am rambly. Procrastination is a bitch. I am going to have to figure out how to get my workout on without the very high end elliptical I had been using to sneak some movement into my day. Perhaps now I will have time to swim again, if only for a while.

Hopers - I'll PM you my email address so you can add me, or you should send me yours.

I am in the exact same situation with the calorie counting. For losing, it's the only thing that works. I can maintain without counting - in the past all I have had to do is refrain from eating stuff I *know* is bad (my upward weight slide in idaho was entirely my own fault based on eating things regularly that I know I can't - donuts, chips, cheetoes, candy dish chocolates, etc. not like a crazy mystery or anything.

I have been getting tired of tracking every bite lately, after almost 3 months of doing it religiously. I am not quite halfway to my goal though, so now really isn't the time to let it slide.